(03-30-2015 11:53 AM)stxrunner Wrote: Let's not get carried away. The Big Ten was still solid enough this year, but it was a major down year in basketball.
Mark Titus sums it up well:
"14. It’s still teams — not conferences — winning these games.
Everyone who’s pretending that Wisconsin and Michigan State making the Final Four means the Big Ten was one of the best conferences in college basketball this season needs to step away from the Internet. The Big Ten was decent, but it was nowhere close to as good as it’s been in recent years. Getting two schools in the Final Four doesn’t change that. All it means is that those two teams haven’t lost in the NCAA tournament. As an Ohio State alum, I’m not going to pretend my team was slightly less crappy because three of its 11 losses came against Final Four teams. The same goes for the turd of a season Illinois squirted out, the season Michigan fans can’t forget fast enough, Minnesota’s disappointment, and Nebraska’s embarrassment.
Are we really going to let eight games that were played by two teams over the course of 10 days erase the rest of the Big Ten season? Are we really going to forget how Mike Tirico sounded like he had an ulcer flaring up whenever he called Big Ten games that didn’t involve Wisconsin? Just because the Big Ten has one good team and another team coached by Izzo doesn’t mean the league didn’t suck as much as we thought it did before the NCAA tournament."
By the league's understandable lofty standards for bball, this was still a bad year no matter how you slice it. The fact that UConn won the nat'l championship last year doesn't all of a sudden make the AAC a good league, and the same is true in this case.
Although I'll definitely agree the B1G in general gets way too much crap.
This is very true. The Big Ten did have a down year in regards to perception during the season. At the end of the year though we found out that The Big Ten was just fine. When we talk about conferences and "brag" we don't brag about strength across the board. That is only what folks talk about when their conference didn't produce a champion. Conferences produce champions. Champions are built through the grind of the conference schedule.
So the fact that Wisconsin and Michigan State are doing so well is very much due to the schedule that they had to play in The Big Ten. The Big Ten didn't have a stand out hierarchy this year because teams kept beating and losing to each other. They all showed up well this year in the tournament.
The Big Ten came into the Sweet Sixteen with two teams and entered the Final Four with two teams. The ACC entered the Sweet Sixteen with five teams and now has just one team left. The ACC did not beat The Big Ten in their challenge. So even with a perceived down year for The Big Ten, it was still an impressive year and it may get a whole lot more impressive.
It wasn't a bad year, it wasn't a great year. That would change though if the conference ends up with two teams in the championship game. If that happens then any argument that this was a bad year for The Big Ten is a terrible argument to make. It's a good year.
To compare UConn winning with the possibility that we may have an all Big Ten Championship Game makes it not even comparable. Whom else in the AAC would have gotten that far? No one, sorry but in this regard your argument is falling flat on it's face Cincy. I can tell you are trying to say some nice things but you still have the habit of having to have some kind of negative twist every time you talk about The Big Ten.
Only losers try to claim the regular season trumps the Tournament. If The Big Ten ends up with two teams in the Championship Game then that absolutely defines the season for The Big Ten. If a Big Ten team wins then 2015 is the Big Ten's year and that cannot be argued.